Conventional radar detectors detect electromagnetic signals (such as microwave signals) or laser signals transmitted from radar or laser-type speed measurement equipment, such as police radar signals. Thus, radar detectors serve to provide advance warning to drivers who are being monitored by police radar. However, radar detectors and their scanning algorithms are an imperfect technology. Electromagnetic waves are naturally vulnerable to reflection, bouncing, and scattering. These characteristics create variability and “noise” that a radar detector must detect and analyze before determining whether or not to alert a motor vehicle operator to a potential threat. In addition, radar detectors do not actively predict areas for alert and, instead, they react to signals they receive from the environment which limits the amount of advanced warning that can be provided.
Those skilled in the art will recognize that for many years there have been a number of tools and/or types of sensing equipment used by drivers to provide an alert to these sorts of traffic control devices, with radar/laser detectors the most common. As used herein, the terms radar detector and electromagnetic signal detector will be used interchangeably to refer to any of a number of known speed detection units capable of detecting electromagnetic waves on the X-band, K-band or Ka-band. Furthermore, the terms radar detector and electromagnetic signal detector will also be used interchangeably to refer to speed detection units known as laser detectors, and could refer to any electromagnetic wave detector or light wave detector. Examples of known technology in this area include U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,784,021 and 5,151,701.
Existing radar detectors' inability to provide alerts in advance of receiving the electromagnetic signal limits each driver's capability to safely adjust his or her driving while approaching a threat or other safety hazard. Radar detectors are also encumbered by sources of false positives, including motion-sensing doors on commercial buildings, motion-detecting burglar alarms, other radar detectors, and light signals emitted from sources other than laser guns. More recently, makers of luxury automobiles have begun offering “collision detection” systems that use microwave motion sensors mounted around the vehicle. A radar detector following one of these vehicles may provide a false alert based on a collision detection system, which may diminish the motor vehicle operator's experience. These factors, taken together, make radar detection problematic.
U.S. Pat. Nos. 6,118,403, 6,384,776, 6,670,905, 6,895,324, and 7,471,236 describe radar detectors and radar detector systems. However, none of the systems overcome the various problems associated with existing radar detectors. In addition, none of the systems provide alerts or predictions based upon a statistical analysis of centralized aggregated data.
U.S. Pat. No. 6,118,403 to Lang generally describes a “Speed Trap Information System.” Generally, the system uses radar detectors and a central server to collect information detected by radar detectors and provide the information as it was received to other radar detectors. However, the '403 patent does not teach a system for analyzing the information for potential false readings. For example, the server receives “speed detecting equipment information and physical location information” from one radar detector and transmits the same information to “authorized users.” Accordingly, the '403 patent does not teach performing a statistical analysis for determining whether or not the “speed detecting equipment information” represents a false reading nor does the patent teach any analysis to determine the likelihood that an alert should be predicted at a later time.
U.S. Pat. No. 6,384,776 to Martin generally describes an “EM Signal Detection and Position Broadcasting System and Method.” Generally, the '776 patent describes using a plurality of radar detectors that broadcast electromagnetic signal positions to other radar detectors. For example, when an electromagnetic signal is detected by one such radar detector, it broadcasts the electromagnetic signal position for any other radar detectors of the system to receive, regardless of whether any other radar detectors are with in the broadcast signal's range. As an alternative to the peer-to-peer broadcasting system, the '776 patent describes using a base station to pass along received electromagnetic signal positions, operating like the system described in the '403 patent. However, like the '403 patent, the '776 patent provides no disclosure of an analysis relating to the potential for false readings or predictability of a threat at a later time.
U.S. Pat. No. 6,670,905 to On generally describes a “Radar Warning Receiver with Position and Velocity Sensitive Functions.” Generally, the patent describes a radar detector which is associated with a local list of stationary locations and the capability to compare the radar detector's current location to the list of stationary locations indicating whether to reject a signal based upon proximity to a listed unrelated source. However, the '905 patent does not disclose a centralized data repository or system that may aggregate and analyze information from one or more radar detectors. Therefore, like the '403 patent, the '905 patent does not provide a disclosure to overcome the problems of existing radar detectors. The '905 patent does not teach an analysis to statistically filter out potential false readings and the '905 patent provides no analysis to predict the probability of a threat at a later time.
U.S. Pat. No. 6,895,324 to Straub generally describes “Methods and Apparatus for Storing, Accessing, Generating and Using Information About Speed Limits and Speed Traps.” Generally, the system of the '324 patent describes a device (which may be a radar or laser detector) that is used to identify speed traps based upon the opinion of an operator and transmit the location and a timestamp to a centralized location, and receives information describing the speed trap inputs from other drivers and speed limits in the area. In an embodiment, the '324 patent discloses that locations of signals received by a radar or laser detector may be stored as speed trap locations. However, like the '403 patent, the '324 patent provides no disclosure of an analysis relating to the potential false readings or predictability of a threat at a later time. Another drawback to the system of the '324 patent is that information is not analyzed and is based upon potentially false readings, opinions of device operators, and any false reports of speed traps whether intentional or unintentional.
U.S. Pat. No. 7,741,236 to Pitt, et al. generally describes a “Cellular Augmented Radar/Laser Detector.” Generally, the system of the '236 patent uses a plurality of radar detectors with cellular capability to transmit emission detection information between other radar detectors. For example, when an electromagnetic signal is detected by one such radar detector, it transmits the emission detection information to other radar detectors of the system over the cellular network based upon a proximity to cellular towers. As an alternative to the cellular peer-to-peer broadcasting system, the '236 patent describes using a central database to store and pass along current detection information received from radar detectors of the system, operating like the system described in the '403 patent. However, like the '403 patent, the '776 patent provides no disclosure of an analysis relating to the potential for false readings or predictability of a threat at a later time.
Existing radar detectors and radar detector systems do not overcome problems with minimizing false alerts while providing advance statistical predictions of potential threats.